Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

donaldking I have not read the novel, but a quick glance at a synopsis of the plot suggests what a mess they've made of it on film. The novel sounds like a serious, intellectual drama. The film is an attempt to simplify the concepts involved, and turn them into a rather straightforward drama. In itself, and no further, this might have succeeded. The failure is caused by other things.The transferral of the Cricks from Greenwich to Pittsburgh is a disastrous mistake - the only reason for doing it was clearly the American box office. Again, the distributors tend to assume that Americans are too stupid to take in a drama set in England. They are wrong.The conversations between Irons (Crick) and John Heard, as American school-teachers discussing education in 1974, are embarrassingly wrong somehow, and bang an entirely wrong beat. The time you first realise Irons is addressing his class of teenagers (Ethan Hawke is 22, actually) as 'children' is even more excruciating. The fact that he apologises for this expression in his farewell speech made me think that one of the script editors had only just noticed how dumb it sounded, and shoved it in as an 'apology' (to the film-goer rather than to the student) at the end.Things get worse. When Irons shows his 'children' a print of the Guillotine and describes, very mildly, some of the mutilated corpses, they all exclaim 'Oh God, no...' and 'Aaargh, how sickening...' They sound more like children from 'Pollyanna', than actual teenagers from Pittsburgh, who'd have grown up under Vietnam, and were just about to see 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' Nearly every 'American' scene is mind-numbingly awful. Irons's farewell speech is hardly Michael Redgrave (or even Albert Finney) in 'The Browning Version.' Someone had another pointless idea. "When Irons starts talking about his past life, let's have the American teenagers actually transported there on the screen." This makes no sense, and after a while the whole idea seems to have been mercifully abandoned. The scene of them trundling across Norfolk in a truck was risible, and I half-expected Captain Mainwaring and Jones's van to appear at any minute. The assumption behind this 'idea' seems that the film-goer is in reality just as thick as John Heard assumes students are - i.e. no one's interested in history and the past - so our best bet is to actually SHOW Ethan Hawke tramping about in the Fens of WW2.John Heard and Peter Postlethwaite are completely wasted, and David Morrissey does the valiant best he can as Irons's mentally handicapped elder brother. I have always found Jeremy Irons greatly over-rated, and 'Waterland' shows just how insipid his acting can be at times. I was - even within the constrictions of the wreckage made of the Graham Swift novel by the scriptwriters - longing for a Dirk Bogarde or a Christopher Ecclestone. Irons simply doesn't carry it. In fact, the bar room scene with Irons and Ethan Hawke showed how much better Hawke is. I was reminded of Hawke with Robin Williams in 'Dead Poets Society' three years earlier. Even that has tinges of embarrassment (most filmmakers have no real idea what schools or universities are like - watch Lewis Gilbert's hysterical portrayal of a 1980's British university in 'Educating Rita') but 'Dead Poets Society' is great stuff compared to the wet mess of 'Waterland'. (Like most films of this sort, it has lashings of dull 'mood music' - always appearing at the completely wrong moment in the film.)PS Ethan Hawke looks 'pretty.'

jotix100 On second viewing, "Waterland" is even darker than when we watched it when it was first released. The tragedy of Tom and Mary suffered during their youth comes back to haunt them in later years, as it's always the case in matters such as these. Of course, we don't know the mystery until it's revealed at the end, but there are indications that point out what looms ahead for these lovers.Stephen Gyllenhaal, the director, has worked out the difficulty posed by a narrative that expands many years into blending history, as it happened, with today's reality as Tom, who is an older man now, recounts his youth to the history class he teaches in Pittsburgh.The film has some lovely flashbacks shot in that part of England that doesn't seem to change. The early part of the story is marked by two tragedies, first the drowning of Dick, and by what fate has in store for Mary. We also learn about the secret story of Tom's unhappy family, as it enfolds when he tells it to the students. It all comes about because of Matthew Price challenges Mr. Crick when he asks the teacher about the practicality of learning history.Jeremy Irons is perfect as the man who carries a burden he cannot get rid of. Sinead Cusack has a small but pivotal part in the story, as the grown Mary. Actually, the ones that fare best in the film are Grant Warnock and Lena Headey, who portray the younger Tom and Mary and give good performances. A young Ethan Hawke plays the inquisitive Matthew Price. David Morrissey, who is seen as Dick Crick, has some good moments. Pete Postlethwaite is wasted. There is a glimpse of Maggie Gyllenhaal at the beginning of the film, but alas, that is all one sees of her.The haunting musical score by Carter Burwell and the dark cinematography of Robert Elswit contribute to give the film the right look that Mr. Gillenhaal wanted for the finished product, no doubt. "Waterland" should have been seen by more people.

George-441 This film is a complex intricate look at sexuality, history, Freud, and superstition all based in the living metaphor of England's fen land, or marshes. It is no coincidence Swift chose to set this incredible story about navigating the labyrinths of jealousy and history- personal and local, using a landscape riddled with secret channels and muddy hidden waters.The acting is superb, and like Ian McEwan's Atonement, looks unflinchingly at the depths of personal tragedy, and history, and their long lasting effects on us as humans, all in the context of historical events.The Fenland is an area deeply steeped in history, going back before the Romans.The film touches literally the taboo of early sexual longing ( male and female)and leaves us to look at the costs of opening Pandora's's box.Swift is a gifted and beautiful writer and I have read this book several times. The film is a credit to the book, which is an unusual statement for films. The film complements the book much in the same way the film of Unbearable Lightness of Being complemented that book.This is a masterful work.

dusted1 This is a dark brooding movie that hooked me the first time I saw it. I've enjoyed watching it a number of times ever since.Jeremy Irons is, as Leonard Matlin indicates in his review, superb in his role. There's a great deal of darkness and certainly some degree of socially deviant behavior in the film. But it's very much the darkness that provides the drama and meaning to the story. It's a beautifully photographed film. I thought Lena Headey was quite good in addition to being stunning. Sinead Cusack and all of the supporting cast were quite good. It is an eccentric film, but I believe it comes through as a very fine piece of film making.It strikes me as being very underrated by the users' ratings. This is probably due in the main to the darkness of the film and its most definite lack of Hollywood style optimism. The lower ratings might also be due to what might be interpreted as a conservative message. I am not a political conservative--God forbid! However, the message that there can be unforeseen and terrible consequences from our actions is something that all of us could well profit from. Very fine movie, but certainly not for those that dislike "the bad taste of things"--or the tragedies of life.